11–20 of 72 posts
actually if you think about it, women would actually have a leg up when it comes to getting funding etc. Since there are so few of them, they have a much higher chance of actually getting to talk about their idea in front of VCs who want to see what they have to offer.
I think that natural selection might explain it. What characrerises reproductively successful men? Or, to put it another way, what qualities do women seek in a mate? Women tend to prefer dominant men of high status with lots of money, and there is little reason to believe that their ancestors differed. For much of human history male status came from being a skilled hunter and warrior and from the ability to influence…
Anyway, take all evolutionary psych with a grain of salt, but it's interesting to talk about.
I think that natural selection might explain it. What characrerises reproductively successful men? Or, to put it another way, what qualities do women seek in a mate? Women tend to prefer dominant men of high status with lots of money, and there is little reason to believe that their ancestors differed. For much of human history male status came from being a skilled hunter and warrior and from the ability to influence…
All of this would certainly be valid if women and men were separate species. It would also certainly be valid if females of the human race had specialized into something reminiscent of a queen bee or ant. I don't know if that is or is not the case, but I know where I'll put the burden of proof.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From a Darwinian perspective, you are of course right. I think that potential pregnancy is a factor. The hours traditionally worked by startup founders could be detrimental to health, and the inability to take prolonged breaks from work at CEO level is probably a deal-breaker. (Some of the best salespeople I know are female, particularly in consultative selling.) RE-EDIT: Sarcastic thanks for the downvotes. And since…
I think that most intelligent women are capable of not getting pregnant while developing their startup.
It's claimed (by?) it takes an average of 7 years to exit your startup. That is a large chunk of time for women with a ticking biological clock. I do realise of course that it is possible to have kids in to your 40s, but most women choose not to do so.
Or the fact that many, many people (men and women) look at any woman between 25 and 40 and expect them to leave to have a baby and raise a family?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that most intelligent women are capable of not getting pregnant while developing their startup.
This may be true. However, I do know some very smart women who have gotten pregnant accidentally. It's claimed (by?) it takes an average of 7 years to exit your startup. That is a large chunk of time for women with a ticking biological clock. I do realise of course that it is possible to have kids in to your 40s, but most women choose not to do so.
Honestly, I see my "grad school clock" as an equally big, if not bigger, problem than anyone's biological clock. When you do a startup, you have to choose your priorities -- the implication is that neither kids nor grad school are amongst them.
On the flip side, men are incarcerated much more frequently than women, and for similar reasons. This is somehow not as surprising.
I think that natural selection might explain it. What characrerises reproductively successful men? Or, to put it another way, what qualities do women seek in a mate? Women tend to prefer dominant men of high status with lots of money, and there is little reason to believe that their ancestors differed. For much of human history male status came from being a skilled hunter and warrior and from the ability to influence…
Consider the evolution of biological genes:
a) Men and women share mostly the same genes (the y chromosome is a desolate wasteland), and there are few (if any) known mechanisms by which gene merging is different for male and female humans.
b) Dominant, decisive, intelligent, women are likely to share similar evolutionary advantages to men. Note that I leave high status out of this equation.
Compare the mathematics to the evolution of culture:
a) There are numerous known cultural differences between what men and women grow up with. There are also many known mechanisms for which cultural meme merging is different for men and for women. Our culture directs different memes towards men and women, to a far greater extent than gene selection does (if it does at all).
b) High status women are in fact less likely to have many kids, as is shown by an abundance of demographic data. Therefore, the mechanism by which they can spread what's responsible for 'high-statusness' is limited mostly to memes. But culture strongly moderates this influence of dominant, high status, intelligent women. Consider the treatment Hilary Clinton is getting now. Even in a more ordinary circumstance, male bosses can wield power in a way that would label their female cohorts 'ice queens'. So the influence of powerful women is labeled a bad thing, and the adoption of those values by other women is severely inhibited.
---
So, for this case, at first glance, it seems like the evolution of cultural memes completely dominates the influence of the evolution of biological genes. Does anyone see a hole in this argument?
I think that natural selection might explain it. What characrerises reproductively successful men? Or, to put it another way, what qualities do women seek in a mate? Women tend to prefer dominant men of high status with lots of money, and there is little reason to believe that their ancestors differed. For much of human history male status came from being a skilled hunter and warrior and from the ability to influence…
Basically, men aren't as important as women. If 99.99% of men died today, the human race could be back to it's normal population within a generation (a man could easily father a child a day for 30 years ~10,000 children). On the other hand, we'd have much more trouble if 99.9% of women died, since a women can only realistically have about 10 children in a lifetime. This encourages men to be bigger risk takers - women were the limiting reagent to population growth.
Similarly, the potential gain for a ridiculously successful man (genetically speaking) is that he can have several thousand children. A women, on the other hand, can likely have 10 children whether or not she is successful; so there is little (evolutionary) benefit for her to be hugely successful (or take risks necessary to do so).
I think that natural selection might explain it. What characrerises reproductively successful men? Or, to put it another way, what qualities do women seek in a mate? Women tend to prefer dominant men of high status with lots of money, and there is little reason to believe that their ancestors differed. For much of human history male status came from being a skilled hunter and warrior and from the ability to influence…
Not convinced? By the same theory, one would think that men in today's society would be highly encouraged to have children with multiple partners -- at roughly age 18. Yet, we discourage both for no apparent genetic benefit. Rather, it's for a societal benefit.
Unfortunately, Darwinian theories about "women being wired for different work than men" are perpetuated at all levels. (Anyone remember Lawrence Summers at Harvard?) And because people actually begin to believe the theories, they become in themselves a form of subtle discrimination that both discourages women from attempting certain activities and prevents them from being offered certain opportunities.
It's really important not to belive it yourself and to consider all the many factors at play here.